New figures from the U.S. Treasury Department indicate that the government has a total operating cash balance of $73.768 billion, less than Apple's own war chest of $75.876 billion.

As noted by Matt Hartley of the Financial Post, the news comes even as Republican and Democrat lawmakers debate over the federal budget and debt ceiling. The government's $73 billion number actually represents the "financial headroom" that lawmakers have before reaching an arbitrary debt ceiling, according to the report.

Apple reported having nearly $76 billion in cash on hand as of June 25, 2011. That's an impressive increase of $10 billion from the previous quarter, when the Cupertino, Calif., company had $65.8 billion in cash reserves.

Apple's war chest has grown quickly since 2005, when it had just $9 billion in reserves. As of the end of 2010, Apple's $60 billion stockpile gave it more cash than any other non-financial company in the U.S.

Shares of Apple closed above $400 for the first time earlier this week, before settling down some, eventually closing at $391.82 on Thursday. The company's market capitalization stands at $363.25 billion, behind only Exxon Mobil, which boasts a market cap of $403.93 billion.

As Apple's cash reserves have soared, several analysts and investors have called for a dividend that would redistribute some of the company's profits to shareholders.

However, Apple CEO Steve Jobs has said that the company's cash hoard is being saved for big moves. "We don't let the cash burn a hole in the pocket or make stupid acquisitions," he said last year. "We'd like to continue to keep our powder dry because we think there are one or more strategic opportunities in the future."

Patent acquisition may be one such strategic opportunity for Apple. The company recently paid $2.6 billion to outbid rival Google, which had $39.1 billion in cash reserves at the end of June, for a collection of more than 6,000 patents from Canadian telecom equipment maker Nortel. Apple teamed up with a consortium that included Microsoft, Research in Motion and Sony, pooling the group's resources in order to place the $4.5 billion winning bid.

Apple is also said to be weighing a bid for Interdigital, a company with a portfolio of 8,800 patents. InterDigital CEO William Merritt claims his company's patents are "deeper and stronger" than Nortel's collection.

This is a funny thought, but pretty inaccurate given how different the numbers are. The 76 billion Apple has is debt-free (mostly) cash, the 73 billion the Govt has is the amount remaining on its credit card, and it owes a lot more than that. All the political stuff aside, and although these numbers are kindof a cutesy comparison, it really is an Apples to oranges thing.

The top 50% pay 97.3% of all taxes.
The bottom 50% pay 2.7% of all taxes.
47% pay *nothing*.

On a side note, 80% of "poor" households can afford cable/satellite TV.
On another side note the average "poor" family in America has the same living space as the *average* family in Europe.

Its sad that liberals like to think that we have people dying in the streets and we need to raise taxes when in fact we (taxpayers) are subsidizing luxury items for a population that has an unparalleled quality of life.

The top 50% pay 97.3% of all taxes.
The bottom 50% pay 2.7% of all taxes.
47% pay *nothing*.

On a side note, 80% of "poor" households can afford cable/satellite TV.
On another side note the average "poor" family in America has the same living space as the *average* family in Europe.

Its sad that liberals like to think that we have people dying in the streets and we need to raise taxes when in fact we (taxpayers) are subsidizing luxury items for a population that has an unparalleled quality of life.

That is purely bullshit. While the poor do not generally pay Federal Income Tax, the still pay Social Security tax, which is capped at $106,800 so the wealthy pay a far smaller percentage of their income in that tax. They also receive a larger portion of their earnings from capital gains which are only 15%. The poor are also subject to sales tax, registration taxes, phone taxes and a myriad of other taxes and fees that eat up a far greater percentage of their net worth than the rich are subjected to. There is NO ONE in this country who does not pay some sort of tax unless they never buy anything. The wealthy pay at a far lower rate than they have since the Great Depression although they use are far greater portion of the government services than anyone else. Does the average citizen ever use the courts, the patent office, oil leases, the services of the FBI, SEC, Secret Service or any other government department except maybe the Transportation Department and the Park Service?

And don't get me started on the average family in Europe. At least they have government provided health care.

That is purely bullshit. While the poor do not generally pay Federal Income Tax, the still pay Social Security tax, which is capped at $106,800 so the wealthy pay a far smaller percentage of their income in that tax. They also receive a larger portion of their earnings from capital gains which are only 15%. The poor are also subject to sales tax, registration taxes, phone taxes and a myriad of other taxes and fees that eat up a far greater percentage of their net worth than the rich are subjected to. There is NO ONE in this country who does not pay some sort of tax unless they never buy anything. The wealthy pay at a far lower rate than they have since the Great Depression although they use are far greater portion of the government services than anyone else. Does the average citizen ever use the courts, the patent office, oil leases, the services of the FBI, SEC, Secret Service or any other government department except maybe the Transportation Department and the Park Service?

And don't get me started on the average family in Europe. At least they have government provided health care.

It might be worth noting that the "enormous" income taxes paid by that top 50% of earners only covers about 30% of what it costs to run the country, and it looks like the poor, retired and sick are being targeted to make up the difference.

That is purely bullshit. While the poor do not generally pay Federal Income Tax, the still pay Social Security tax, which is capped at $106,800 so the wealthy pay a far smaller percentage of their income in that tax. They also receive a larger portion of their earnings from capital gains which are only 15%. The poor are also subject to sales tax, registration taxes, phone taxes and a myriad of other taxes and fees that eat up a far greater percentage of their net worth than the rich are subjected to. There is NO ONE in this country who does not pay some sort of tax unless they never buy anything. The wealthy pay at a far lower rate than they have since the Great Depression although they use are far greater portion of the government services than anyone else. Does the average citizen ever use the courts, the patent office, oil leases, the services of the FBI, SEC, Secret Service or any other government department except maybe the Transportation Department and the Park Service?

And don't get me started on the average family in Europe. At least they have government provided health care.

I read this and it's changed my view. Mexico can have CA back. Betting they can run it better.

That is purely bullshit. While the poor do not generally pay Federal Income Tax, the still pay Social Security tax, which is capped at $106,800 so the wealthy pay a far smaller percentage of their income in that tax. They also receive a larger portion of their earnings from capital gains which are only 15%. The poor are also subject to sales tax, registration taxes, phone taxes and a myriad of other taxes and fees that eat up a far greater percentage of their net worth than the rich are subjected to. There is NO ONE in this country who does not pay some sort of tax unless they never buy anything. The wealthy pay at a far lower rate than they have since the Great Depression although they use are far greater portion of the government services than anyone else. Does the average citizen ever use the courts, the patent office, oil leases, the services of the FBI, SEC, Secret Service or any other government department except maybe the Transportation Department and the Park Service?

And don't get me started on the average family in Europe. At least they have government provided health care.

That is purely bullshit. While the poor do not generally pay Federal Income Tax, the still pay Social Security tax, which is capped at $106,800 so the wealthy pay a far smaller percentage of their income in that tax. They also receive a larger portion of their earnings from capital gains which are only 15%. The poor are also subject to sales tax, registration taxes, phone taxes and a myriad of other taxes and fees that eat up a far greater percentage of their net worth than the rich are subjected to. There is NO ONE in this country who does not pay some sort of tax unless they never buy anything. The wealthy pay at a far lower rate than they have since the Great Depression although they use are far greater portion of the government services than anyone else. Does the average citizen ever use the courts, the patent office, oil leases, the services of the FBI, SEC, Secret Service or any other government department except maybe the Transportation Department and the Park Service?

And don't get me started on the average family in Europe. At least they have government provided health care.

The amount paid into Social Security tax is tied to later in life social security payments. That money isn't supposed to be used for anything else. If you remove the cap, the wealthy will get huge retirement checks. I'm sure there would be outrage over that.

Oh, you must mean those families with less than $33k of yearly income?

It was those Bush tax cuts (seriously) that resulted in so many lower-income households not paying income taxes. Under Clinton, the lowest tax bracket was 15%. Bush lowered it to 10% and raised the income limit where taxes start.

The larger point of the story, however, is that this whole episode reveals just how massive spending has gotten. The entire cash and investment balances of the 2nd most valuable company in the US would fund our new borrowing for less than one month. Everyone wants someone else's taxes raised (e.g. "the rich"), but "the rich" don't have enough money by themselves. This will eventually hit all of us.

Its sad that liberals like to think that we have people dying in the streets and we need to raise taxes when in fact we (taxpayers) are subsidizing luxury items for a population that has an unparalleled quality of life.

Don't worry, people dying in the streets is the Tea Party wet dream of what America should be. "If the homeless are too lazy to work, why should we support them. Let them die in the streets, it's their choice."

It might be worth noting that the "enormous" income taxes paid by that top 50% of earners only covers about 30% of what it costs to run the country, and it looks like the poor, retired and sick are being targeted to make up the difference.

What a disconnect from the actual problem! Since, as you assert, this only covers "30% of what it costs to run the country" you have identified what MUST change. The limited government desired by our founding fathers, not additional tax increases to justify ever expanding entitlement programs is the only answer. You can either tax the people to death (rich or poor) and kill jobs, or this country can start to live within it's means which is simply common sense. Given the determination of many liberals and atheists to drive any mention of God from the public square, one can't help feeling that they want to instead elevate big government to god status - where no one can buy, sell, or even breath air without being beholden to some faceless bureaucracy.

You mean Socialist Liberal Leftists... You been watching MSLED and drinking their kool-aid. "Tea baggers" as you like to call them, protested government wasteful spending. That makes Apple FULL of TEA Party folk! If not, then AI's title to this post would be "Apple's negative $76B in the hole surpasses US government operating imbalance at the hands of Obama, they're both screwed!"
/
/
/

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash. Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Yes, but how much does the top 10% pay? That is the more germane stat since it is they that are being targeted with a tax increase, not the 50% through 90% group.

65% of income taxes are paid by the top 10% - less if you count payroll taxes, but I don't since that money is more than paid back (at least if you are a baby boomer and get in before it all goes bust).

That is purely bullshit. While the poor do not generally pay Federal Income Tax, the still pay Social Security tax, which is capped at $106,800 so the wealthy pay a far smaller percentage of their income in that tax. They also receive a larger portion of their earnings from capital gains which are only 15%. The poor are also subject to sales tax, registration taxes, phone taxes and a myriad of other taxes and fees that eat up a far greater percentage of their net worth than the rich are subjected to. There is NO ONE in this country who does not pay some sort of tax unless they never buy anything. The wealthy pay at a far lower rate than they have since the Great Depression although they use are far greater portion of the government services than anyone else. Does the average citizen ever use the courts, the patent office, oil leases, the services of the FBI, SEC, Secret Service or any other government department except maybe the Transportation Department and the Park Service?

And don't get me started on the average family in Europe. At least they have government provided health care.

It is laughable that you praise government run health care in europe when you cannot even get a procedure to save your life. Why do leaders from around the wold come to AMERICA for health care?
(hint: because no matter what the UN says America is #1)
Because

Social Security is capped because the payments are capped.
I pay in, i take out.

It was never intended to redistribute wealth like the progressive income tax.
There is no reason to remove the cap unless you also remove the cap for payments.

Not really sure how any taxpayer can defend a system where we spend a trillion dollars a year to subsidize cable TV for the "poor" or that 2nd TV/DVD player.

90% of those items are luxury items.

I am not arguing that we should get ride of taxes. Quite the contrary. Its just when people bitch about the "rich" they really do not understand the economics of it all.

If you really want to get into a tax debate we can do that.
99% of the spending problem in D.C. is because of the overreach by the federal government and the perversion of the commerce clause.

It would be much more effective to return the power to tax and spend to the states to let them decide what is in their best interest be it education or medical marijuana. Right now we send huge portions of out income to the federal government which is then returned to the states who are then told how to spend it. This is the opposite of how the country was setup. The problem now is that the federal government has grown so large that it limits the amount the states can tax.

Taxing (and spending) power must be returned to the states. It would end gridlock as each state would operate at its own pace while spurring competition between states.

When asking if the federal government should be doing something, it should first be determined if the state can do that role. If so, then that job should be delegated to the state. If it is something outlined in the constitution or something a state cannot do (like national defense) then it should be delegated to the federal government.

We then could lower taxes at the federal level to a flat tax, say 10% across the board - no deductions while increasing local taxes (if the state/county/city chooses).

Look at a state like California. For every dollar we send to D.C. for services we get less than 70 cents back and most of that is earmarked for pet projects like no child left behind.

It is laughable that you praise government run health care in europe when you cannot even get a procedure to save your life. Why do leaders from around the wold come to AMERICA for health care?
(hint: because no matter what the UN says America is #1)
Because

Social Security is capped because the payments are capped.
I pay in, i take out.

It was never intended to redistribute wealth like the progressive income tax.
There is no reason to remove the cap unless you also remove the cap for payments.

Not really sure how any taxpayer can defend a system where we spend a trillion dollars a year to subsidize cable TV for the "poor" or that 2nd TV/DVD player.

90% of those items are luxury items.

I am not arguing that we should get ride of taxes. Quite the contrary. Its just when people bitch about the "rich" they really do not understand the economics of it all.

If you really want to get into a tax debate we can do that.
99% of the spending problem in D.C. is because of the overreach by the federal government and the perversion of the commerce clause.

It would be much more effective to return the power to tax and spend to the states to let them decide what is in their best interest be it education or medical marijuana. Right now we send huge portions of out income to the federal government which is then returned to the states who are then told how to spend it. This is the opposite of how the country was setup. The problem now is that the federal government has grown so large that it limits the amount the states can tax.

Taxing (and spending) power must be returned to the states. It would end gridlock as each state would operate at its own pace while spurring competition between states.

When asking if the federal government should be doing something, it should first be determined if the state can do that role. If so, then that job should be delegated to the state. If it is something outlined in the constitution or something a state cannot do (like national defense) then it should be delegated to the federal government.

We then could lower taxes at the federal level to a flat tax, say 10% across the board - no deductions while increasing local taxes (if the state/county/city chooses).

Look at a state like California. For every dollar we send to D.C. for services we get less than 70 cents back and most of that is earmarked for pet projects like no child left behind.

It is laughable that you praise government run health care in europe when you cannot even get a procedure to save your life. Why do leaders from around the wold come to AMERICA for health care?
(hint: because no matter what the UN says America is #1)
Because

Social Security is capped because the payments are capped.
I pay in, i take out.

It was never intended to redistribute wealth like the progressive income tax.
There is no reason to remove the cap unless you also remove the cap for payments.

Not really sure how any taxpayer can defend a system where we spend a trillion dollars a year to subsidize cable TV for the "poor" or that 2nd TV/DVD player.

90% of those items are luxury items.

I am not arguing that we should get ride of taxes. Quite the contrary. Its just when people bitch about the "rich" they really do not understand the economics of it all.

If you really want to get into a tax debate we can do that.
99% of the spending problem in D.C. is because of the overreach by the federal government and the perversion of the commerce clause.

It would be much more effective to return the power to tax and spend to the states to let them decide what is in their best interest be it education or medical marijuana. Right now we send huge portions of out income to the federal government which is then returned to the states who are then told how to spend it. This is the opposite of how the country was setup. The problem now is that the federal government has grown so large that it limits the amount the states can tax.

Taxing (and spending) power must be returned to the states. It would end gridlock as each state would operate at its own pace while spurring competition between states.

When asking if the federal government should be doing something, it should first be determined if the state can do that role. If so, then that job should be delegated to the state. If it is something outlined in the constitution or something a state cannot do (like national defense) then it should be delegated to the federal government.

We then could lower taxes at the federal level to a flat tax, say 10% across the board - no deductions while increasing local taxes (if the state/county/city chooses).

Look at a state like California. For every dollar we send to D.C. for services we get less than 70 cents back and most of that is earmarked for pet projects like no child left behind.

And don't get me started on the average family in Europe. At least they have government provided health care.

You really aren't very smart, are you?

+1

As much as George Soros would love our country to become a Socialist welfare state like Greece, thankfully we're not quite there yet. But there are certain fools who believe so strongly in their entitlements that they're willing to sink the whole ship for a handful of free band-aids.